Freehold isn't due to solicitors mistake

ExEstateAgent

xlt506 said:

user1977 said:

So who owns the freehold?

I own the freehold 

If you own the freehold then you must also own the leasehold. I think you bought a property that was originally a leasehold, the previous owners bought the freehold but didn't merge the titles, so you own a leasehold house but also the freehold to it (so whilst there is a lease it's basically irrelevant becuase when the lease expires the property will revert to the freeholder, which is you!). 

xlt506

user1977 said:

xlt506 said:

user1977 said:

xlt506 said:

xlt506 said:

user1977 said:

So who owns the freehold?

The original owners that I purchased it from

Sorry I own the freehold,  but there is a charge on for the land as a leasehold 

So you mean the original owners own the leasehold?

If you currently have solicitors representing you, why can't they answer your questions?

im trying to find out where documents may be that show there isn't a leasehold on the property,  surely local government records would have this?

Why would any local government records have it? If the Land Registry has the lease on it, there's not going to be an alternative register contradicting the fact that there's a lease.

But I don't know this, and like I said I'm looking to see of ways to proove this so the land registry will change the entry.

What process would you follow?

xlt506

ExEstateAgent said:

xlt506 said:

user1977 said:

So who owns the freehold?

I own the freehold 

If you own the freehold then you must also own the leasehold. I think you bought a property that was originally a leasehold, the previous owners bought the freehold but didn't merge the titles, so you own a leasehold house but also the freehold to it (so whilst there is a lease it's basically irrelevant becuase when the lease expires the property will revert to the freeholder, which is you!). 

That's fine in 54 years time, but I'm selling now, and your right,  that's what they said, the titles were not merged, so in the meantime,  how do I get it merged?

eddddy

xlt506 said:

That's fine in 54 years time, but I'm selling now, and your right,  that's what they said, the titles were not merged, so in the meantime,  how do I get it merged?

From what you say, it sounds like the issue is that the freehold title was transferred to you, but the leasehold title wasn't transferred to you.

So the seller still owns the leasehold title - hence the statement of truth about the seller never having attempted to live at the property, etc.

If you owned the freehold title and leasehold title you could merge them - although merging them isn't really important. It's owning them both that's important.



I believe that one approach would be to find the original seller and ask them to help sort things out by signing the documents to transfer the leasehold to you now (as that's probably what they intended to do anyway).

silvercar

Normally your sellers (when you bought) would have merged the titles if they themselves bought the freehold. If they didn’t merge, then they could have sold both onto you and your solicitors on purchase merge the title. Or there could have been an error at Land Registry and they only noted your purchase of the freehold, when they should have noted your purchase of both the freehold and leasehold.

any input @Land_Registry?

xlt506

eddddy said:

xlt506 said:

That's fine in 54 years time, but I'm selling now, and your right,  that's what they said, the titles were not merged, so in the meantime,  how do I get it merged?

From what you say, it sounds like the issue is that the freehold title was transferred to you, but the leasehold title wasn't transferred to you.

So the seller still owns the leasehold title - hence the statement of truth about the seller never having attempted to live at the property, etc.

If you owned the freehold title and leasehold title you could merge them - although merging them isn't really important. It's owning them both that's important.



I believe that one approach would be to find the original seller and ask them to help sort things out by signing the documents to transfer the leasehold to you now (as that's probably what they intended to do anyway).

I believe that is the next course of action, unfortunately it will probably cost me.

xlt506

silvercar said:

Normally your sellers (when you bought) would have merged the titles if they themselves bought the freehold. If they didn’t merge, then they could have sold both onto you and your solicitors on purchase merge the title. Or there could have been an error at Land Registry and they only noted your purchase of the freehold, when they should have noted your purchase of both the freehold and leasehold.

any input @Land_Registry?

I've contacted the landregistry,  I believe they should have an AP1 form which should shed some light on it, although I'm unsure as limited information on the net

Land_Registry

That is the next course of action - in order to merge the two titles and effectively close (determine) the lease you need both titles to be in the same legal ownership for starters.
If you purchased one but not the other then you need the still registered owner(s) to now transfer the title to you - a repeat of what happened to the other title effectively.
You may also wish to revisit what the conveyancer did at the time as some culpability may exist even though they have not retained the paper records.

lfc321

It's hard to follow, but from the above discussion it sounds to me like you own both the freehold and the leasehold - but the titles have not been merged. If you search for your house on the  Land Registry you should be able to confirm this: there will be two titles (one for the freehold and one for the leasehold). Download them and check you own both.

If you do indeed own both, then (even if not technically) in practice the house is essentially freehold and I don't think it would be unjustified to advertise it as such. Lots of houses are owned like this, usually when the leaseholder has bought the freehold but never bothered merging the titles. There is no ground rent to pay, no-one you have to get permission from to make alterations, and at the end of the lease it will revert to you as freeholder. In all but name, it is freehold.

Your buyers, if they choose, could merge the two titles during the conveyancing process - it wouldn't cost much to do so while they are having the other legal work done. You could even offer to cover the extra cost of this if that made a difference to getting your sale over the line. Or your buyers could continue to own both separately, which wouldn't cause them any problems.

(Sorry if I have misunderstood your situation - it wasn't very clear). 

xlt506

Well at the moment I'm waiting for the statement of truth to take affect or not, it does appear that everything seems to be going in the right direction,  what the outcome and time scale will be is out of my hands. Hopefully my buyer will hang on